No. But we have spoken to him so know that the court case makes discussions on the £750k in particular very difficult. From memory there was hope that would be over by November this year.
If we can't get Conway to give an opinion in public direct to fans, even if the reply is a holding one, I'd be inclined to get Zuk on the record. There are quite a few issues that someone in charge of finance and operations (if thats still his remit) should be answering to the fanbase. Budgeting, his stance on BFC as a future going concern, the directors fees reaching record levels and much much more.
I'm struggling to see why this would be the case. If you'd said this regarding the £2.75m outstanding then that would make sense, but the £750k paid is a historic transaction that has been factually disclosed in nature within the audited accounts. I don't get why any questions regarding this would be an issue.
Nothing there that the CEO couldn't answer if those type of questions were asked. He just sat in front of 70+ supporters and it wasn't brought up. Nor did the media ask anything on that score either (but they did ask lots of other stuff). The CEO has spoken about BFC as a future going concern, has he not? Director fees is a really valid question though.
It wasn't aimed at you, but was a genuine observation regarding the response It seems like more of a convenient response, than one with any particular merit, in my opinion.
I agree that its nothing that the CEO couldn't answer... but he's largely chosen not to for various reasons. Given the FD has been here some time and can't hide behind things based on time at the club, he's in a much better position to give detailed answers. Given the CEO has chosen to close it all down as a line of discussion, and given Conway is hiding in open sight, I'd try the FD avenue. If he choses not to reply or hides behind comments already given or says its the CEO's responsibility, then I think fans have run out of road of getting answers to key questions.
I would guess that the 'All members of the board agreed on the performance bonus payment' is enough of a response? Maybe going in to details around why it was agreed and what that means for future payments is off limits, considering that payment and future payments are part of this court case?
We've had three separate answers on the £750k though. Might not be the detail some of us would have liked, but consistent each time. It was a performance payment agreed by all board members. The part around budgeting, forecasting, etc. is one that obviously isn't high on the agenda for the media or supporters who attend the open forums. Be reluctant to suggest anyone is hiding when the questions haven't been asked, and not something that we would explore exclusively as a Trust and just look at when the next opportunity comes up to speak to the club.
Nowhere near enough of a response, particularly as to why it involves a loan write off to the parent company if the contractual agreement entitled the monies to be paid from the football club to begin with. The response you've quoted essentially opens up a huge can of worms, and that's without looking at the implications it may or may not have on the future position.
But that future position involves discussing a live court case. I agree by the way, and find the whole thing very strange, but I can see the hesitancy to go in to much more detail.
The more I probe into this, the more I see the opposite. I can see hesitancy in going into more detail, on the part of the directors of Barnsley Football Club Limited, but not for reasons associated with the court case.
Fair enough. My knowledge and expertise on either side of this is hugely limited, but I know it isn't uncommon to not talk about subjects due to go to trial.
Its not being bottom that upsets me as much as being bottom without a fight. And having mindless halfwits running the club